Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (249183)	4/16/2014 4:35:05 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 542197

Message 29492010

To: Ron who wrote (249183)	4/16/2014 4:35:39 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 542197

Message 29492010

To: Ron who wrote (249183)	4/22/2014 1:38:12 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 542197

Apparently, plans to remove Saddam become the US's official policy under Clinton in 1998 and such planning continued under the Bush Administration: From the Wiki link on the "Iraq War": In October 1998, removing the Hussein regime became official U.S. foreign policy with enactment of the Iraq Liberation Act. Enacted following the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors the preceding August (after some had been accused of spying for the U.S.), the act provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." [38] This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which focused on weapons and weapons programs and made no mention of regime change. [39] One month after the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper Saddam Hussein's government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. intelligence personnel also hoped it would help weaken Hussein’s grip on power. [40] With the election of George W. Bush as president in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more aggressive policy toward Iraq. The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act as "a starting point" in a plan to "remove" Hussein. [41] After leaving the George W. Bush administration, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since Bush's inauguration, and that the first United States National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton administration. [42] Despite the Bush administration's stated interest in liberating Iraq, little formal movement towards an invasion occurred until the 11 September 2001 attacks. For example, the administration prepared Operation Desert Badger to respond aggressively if any Air Force pilot was shot down while flying over Iraq, but this did not happen. Rumsfeld dismissed National Security Agency (NSA) intercept data available by midday of the 11th that pointed to al-Qaeda's culpability, and by mid-afternoon ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans for attacking Iraq. [43] According to aides who were with him in the National Military Command Center on that day, Rumsfeld asked for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden." [44] A memo written by Rumsfeld in November 2001 considers an Iraq war. [45] The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. [46] Shortly after 11 September 2001 (on 20 September), Bush addressed a joint session of Congress (simulcast live to the world), and announced his new " War on Terror". This announcement was accompanied by the doctrine of "pre-emptive" military action, later termed the Bush Doctrine. Allegations of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by some U.S. Government officials who asserted that a highly secretive relationship existed between Saddam and the radical Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek UN authorization, while still reserving the option of invading without it. [47] So just as you can assert that LBJ's actions toward Vietnam was just a continuation of policies started by John Foster Dulles I can assert that "W"'s actions were just a going forward of the polices started under Clinton. But this to me is beside my argumentative point which is that it is the presence of deceptive acts on the part of both presidents that establish the existence of "evil" in their acts. (Get that Bentway) Did both President's (W & and LBJ) engage in deceptive behavior in order to get congressional approval for their subsequent military behavior? We know the answer for LBJ thanks to the "Pentagon Papers" and subsequent analysis of the events that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I have been arguing there is/was doubt as to whether "W" 'knew' that the assessment of "Curveball's" intell was deficient inasmuch we don't know if the German's critique of the same man made it into the WH. You (and Bentway) have been arguing, I think, that the existence of plans for the invasion of Iraq prior to 9/11 establishes what? A climate of deception? An intent to go to war with Iraq from the get go? Certainly more than innocence or naivety on the part of 'W". But I think the Wiki delineation of events questions that. Hey, there were already plans on the drawing Board and the "W" adminstration just carried them forward. Which I also think takes care of the significance of the point raised by Bentway and the ex-Treasury Secretary's allegations. I want there to be evidence that Bush received a briefing on "Curveball"'s assertions of WMD's in Iraq AND simultaneously the information that the German's said it was highly suspect and that "W" gave a directive to ignore this or hide it or both.Otherwise the allegations against "W" of "evil" it rise to no more than an inference of such. .